A big question for discussion is whether plant-based meat alternatives are better for health and the environment than regulat meat.  Are they?  Here is one study.

Plant-based animal product alternatives are healthier and more environmentally sustainable than animal products.  
Christopher J. Bryant.  Front Nutr.  2022 Jul 19;9:934438.   doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.934438. eCollection 2022.

Rationale:   There are strong reasons to move away from industrial animal agriculture for the good of the environment, animals, our personal health, and public health. Plant-based animal product alternatives (PB-APAs) represent a highly feasible way to reduce animal product consumption, since they address the core consumer decision drivers of taste, price, and convenience.

Method: This paper reviews 43 studies on the healthiness and environmental sustainability of PB-APAs compared to animal products.

Findings:  In terms of environmental sustainability, PB-APAs are more sustainable compared to animal products across a range of outcomes including greenhouse gas emissions, water use, land use, and other outcomes. In terms of healthiness, PB-APAs present a number of benefits, including generally favourable nutritional profiles, aiding weight loss and muscle synthesis, and catering to specific health conditions.

Conclusion:  As more conventional meat producers move into plant-based meat products, consumers and policymakers should resist naturalistic heuristics about PB-APAs and instead embrace their benefits for the environment, public health, personal health, and animals.

Conflict of interest: Although there is no specific conflict of interest or funding related to this project, the author is an independent research consultant and works with alternative protein companies.

Comment:  You would think that plant-based meat alternatives would be better for the environment than beef but without an agreed-upon method for assessing environmental impact, much depends on researchers’ assumptions.  This literature review was done by a consultant who does research for companies making alternative-to-meat proteins.   His conclusion based on his study—the takeover of small plant-based meat companies by Big Meat is a Good Thing—is predictable from his conflicted interest.  I’d prefer an independent assessment of the environmental implications of these products.

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

TODAY: Seattle Town Hall, 7:30 p.m.  Information is here.

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

TODAY: Petaluma, 140 Kentucky, Copperfield’s Books, 7:00 p.m.  Information is here.

**********

Nature Food has an issue devoted largely to the topic of cell-based meat.

It is worth reading for getting an idea of where current thinking is on this issue, and also because of Phil Howard’s latest take on power on industry the cellular food category.

See his commentary article below.

• Editorial: Cellular agriculture and food systems priorities
• Feature: Cellular agriculture could be a game-changer or just another spot on the supermarket shelves, Karl Gruber
• Comment & Opinion

• Cultured meat needs a race to mission not a race to market, Dwayne Holmes, David Humbird, Jan Dutkiewicz, Yadira Tejeda-Saldana, Breanna Duffy et al.Comment
• A virtue-ethical approach to cultured meat, Carlo Alvaro
• Cultivated meat as a tool for fighting antimicrobial resistance, Eileen McNamara & Claire Bomkamp
• Thick and thin food justice approaches in the evaluation of cellular agriculture, Garrett M. Broad & Robert M. Chiles
• Cellular agriculture will reinforce power asymmetries in food systems, Philip H. Howard
• Challenges of assessing the environmental sustainability of cellular agriculture, Hanna L. Tuomisto
• The triple bottom line framework can connect people, planet and profit in cellular agriculture, Marianne Jane Ellis, Alexandra Sexton, Illtud Dunsford & Neil Stephens
• Transforming a 12,000-year-old technology, Bruce Friedrich

Research Highlight: The price is right for artificial meat, Anne Mullen

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

TODAY: 3:30 pm, lecture followed by a reception.  Robertson Auditorium, Mission Bay Conference Center, 1675Owens Street Unit 251.  Register here.

**********

FRAC, the Food Research & Action Center, emailed this press announcement:   FRAC and More Than 30 National Organizations Urge Senators to Include Provisions to Expand Community Eligibility in Child Nutrition Reauthorization

The groups signed a letter calling for:

• Lowering the eligibility threshold for community eligibility (making school meals universal) from 40 percent identified students to 25 percent
• Raising the federal reimbursement so participating schools can serve students
• Creating a statewide community eligibility option, which would make universal school meals statewide.

Yes!

Here’s what FRAC says about community eligibility:

Community eligibility allows high-need schools to offer free meals to all students at no charge. It reduces administrative work for school districts; allows them to focus on providing healthy and appealing meals to students; supports working families who don’t qualify for free school meals; ensures that all students have the nutrition they need to learn and thrive; and eliminates unpaid school meal fees…Studies have shown participation in school meals improves students’ attendance, behavior, and academic achievement, and reduces tardiness. Students who eat breakfast at school perform better on standardized tests than those who skip breakfast or eat breakfast at home, and have improved scores in spelling, reading, and math.

We had universal school meals during the pandemic.  This was:

• Good for students and their families; kids were fed decently
• Good for schools; the didn’t have to police and stigmatize kids whose families couldn’t pay for meals

Universal school meals would save administrative costs.  Yes, they would cost more, but not that much more.

And the payoff in kids’ health would be terrific.

This one is a no brainer.

Do it, please.

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

TODAY: San Francisco, Omnivore Books on Food, 3885 Cesar Chavez at Church.  Information is here.

*********

I was happy to see this press release from the USDA: Biden-Harris Administration Invests $80 Million to Improve Nutrition in School.

School districts can use the funds to purchase upgraded equipment that will support:

• Serving healthier meals, including those sourced from local foods;
• Implementing scratch cooking;
• Establishing or expanding school breakfast;
• Storing fresh food;
• Improving food safety.

This adds to what this administration is already doing for school meals.  It’s an impressive list.

What’s next?  Universal school meals, please.

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

TODAY: KPFA book talk in Berkeley.  The Back Room, 1984 Bonita Avenue, 7:00 pm.  Ticketing info is here.

*****

Jim Krieger, who I will see in Seattle on Saturday, sent this one.

The study: Protocol for a multicentre, parallel, randomised, controlled trial on the effect of sweeteners and sweetness enhancers on health, obesity and safety in overweight adults and children: the SWEET project.  Louise Kjølbæk ¹, Yannis Manios ^2 3, Ellen E Blaak ⁴, J Alfredo Martínez ^5 6, Edith J M Feskens ⁷, Graham Finlayson ⁸, Sabina S H Andersen ⁹, Kyriakos Reppas ², Santiago Navas-Carretero ^5 10, Tanja C Adam ¹¹, Charo E Hodgkins ¹², Marta Del Álamo ¹³, Tony Lam ¹⁴, Hariklia Moshoyiannis ¹⁵, Jason C G Halford ^8 16, Joanne A Harrold ¹⁶, Anne Raben ^9 17  BMJ Open.  2022 Oct 12;12(10):e061075.   doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061075.

Purpose: “The aim of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to investigate whether prolonged consumption of sweeteners and sweetness enhancers (S&SEs) within a healthy diet will improve weight loss maintenance and obesity-related risk factors and affect safety markers compared with sugar.”

Competing interests: “AR has received honoraria from Unilever and the International Sweeteners Association. CEH’s research centre provides consultancy to, and has received travel funds to present research results from organisations supported by food and drink companies. JCGH and JH have received project funds from the American Beverage Association. TL works for a company, NetUnion sarl, which has no conflict of interest in the study outcome.”

Comment: This is the official announcement of the research and analysis methods for a new clinical trial.  Once the study gets going, it will take a year to get the results.  It looks like the trial will be comparing the effects of artificial sweeteners and sugar on body weight and other markers.  It is sponsored by a company that makes artificial sweeteners and a trade association for the makers and users of artificial sweeteners.  Want to take bets on what the results will look like?

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

Trick or Treat?  You can’t make this stuff up.  CORRECTION: No you can’t.  It’s a fake.  Busted.

On the brighter side…

Happy Halloween!

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

This is too good not to share.  I learned about it from this tweet from Simon Boquera at Mexico’s Public Health Institute.  It’s a bit over two minutes and aimed at kids.

Wish we had something like this!

Some innovations of the Mexican government healthy eating campaign:

1. Recommends Mexican traditional diet, 2. Physical activity, 3. Hydration with water, 4. Using warning labels to discard #junkfood 5. Avoid sugary drinks and 6. Promote breast feeding pic.twitter.com/wFUUC6UvIY

— Dr. Simón Barquera (@SBarquera) October 23, 2022